> owning the your image within the movie is understandable I don't think it's at all reasonable to own someone's image for an entire movie, to manipulate it fo

> owning the your image within the movie is understandable I don't think it's at all reasonable to own someone's image for an entire movie, to manipulate it for as many scenes as they want, if the actor was only paid for one scene on one day. Actors should be paid for every scene they are in, whether real or virtual IMO. It would seem reasonable to pay actors, including their likeness, by the second multiplied by factors such as the actor's experience, importance of their part to the film, etc. Maybe they get paid a little less for using their likeness, but that's a pricing negotiation between the actor and the studio. It could be that the actor's likeness is more valuable than the actual actor performing if the studio needed to do a lot of manipulation.